Ulf and Ilford!

[Rob Vinnedge]

I am curious as to why more people are not responding to Ilford's announcement on their website that they are seriously considering providing large sheet film for the ULF community. Is it possible that the demand is not so great? I, for one, would like to see FP4 and HP5 in 14x17 and 16x 20 on an annual or semi-annual basis.

Go to www.ilford.com and see their Ilfopro forum for more information. They are asking those who are interested to register their wishes.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Because I cannot find the damn thread. What good is to ask about customer's opinions if the thread is hidden in more than 3000 messages? If they really wanted an opinion and how we would respond to their product they would come to this forum and APUG to ask the damn question!

I use fp4, I would buy it and I would love to let them know, but I am not about to spend 40 minutes looking for the thread.

[Paul Cutler]

It is not that hard to find - go to www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/forum/default.asp which is the forum front page and it is the sixth thread down in the categories called (and this is perhaps where the confusion arises) PULPA. Once you know this it takes literally seconds to get in to.

Paul

[Diane Maher]

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6720

[Oren Grad]

Jorge, I hope you will make the effort, even if it's not so convenient as you would like. With Forte still on none-too-solid ground, and harder to communicate with than Ilford even under the best of circumstances, there's a non-negligible risk that we could end up with nothing. If users of niche-within-a-niche products like ULF sheet film aren't willing to go the extra mile to support those vendors who are willing to play - yes, even if they mess up in some ways - the products will be gone.

[Oren Grad]

Jorge - I dropped in to the Ilford forum and I see that you have just posted there. I really appreciate your adding your voice - we need the support of dedicated users like you. Thanks...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yeah...PULPA what a dumb name! Anyhow I posted my preference and I will post this in APUG, maybe we can stirr up a little bit more interest.

[George Losse]

Does anybody know what PULPA means?

I posted over there but honestly Illford has not cut film for the 8x20 in the past. And cutting down 12x20 while other manufactures will cut film to 8x20 doesn't make any sense to me.
If that continues, I'll stay with J&C. Their prices are great and their service is fine.

George Losse

[Oren Grad]

Does anybody know what PULPA means?

Per email from Steve Coomber of Ilford, it stands for "Provisional Ultra-Large Photography Associates".

George, we'll see what Ilford finally comes up with, but what many of us are hoping is that they will accept orders for whatever sizes we want, so long as we are willing to back up those orders with cash rather than expecting Ilford to produce for stock on a speculative basis. If they are able to deliver on that, I hope you'll support the effort.

[George Losse]

"Provisional Ultra-Large Photography Associates"

That sounds like a mouthful.

I only have one problem with the business model that Illford wants us to go into. They produce a product once a year to fill orders, then we have to keep it fresh in cold storage and hope that we did not over or under estimate our usage for the year. Then after the dealers that used to be there at the other end of the phone ready to supply us stop stocking ULF sizes, Illford changes its mind next year and we are left with NO suppliers of ULF sizes.

I like having the ability to say, I need more film for this unplanned trip in two weeks, I'll pick up the phone and order some. And not have to worry about if I go over budget on film usage for the year.

I think I'll take a wait and see approach with Illford. If they do this more then once, I'll think about ordering film from them.

George

[neil poulsen]

I agree with Jorge. It's a great question. Why not put it somewhere on their webpage, where it's in plain view. They could have a questionaire and structure it to discern actual ulf practitioners.

I'm in favor of anything that Ilford can do to bolster their business. They've always been open to special runs, etc., to support ulf.

[Oren Grad]

I like having the ability to say, I need more film for this unplanned trip in two weeks, I'll pick up the phone and order some. And not have to worry about if I go over budget on film usage for the year.

That's great, but my fear is that if we insist on having every convenience, before we know it we won't have anything. I'm not sure it's entirely sunk in just how high is the risk that we'll lose everything.

JandC is great, I appreciate what John has done and have purchased from him myself. You like the convenience of ordering whenever you want - so do I. But his current business model of buying for stock depends on steady demand from customers for a pretty wide range of obscure stuff. If you watch his website you'll see that with all the good things people say about JandC in these forums, he is still routinely having to sell off expired or short-dated stock at a steep discount. We'll see how long he can sustain that model. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the end, everyone has to move toward a system of special orders with payment up front.

[George Losse]

"I'm not sure it's entirely sunk in just how high is the risk that we'll lose everything. "

Oren,

Relax, the sky is not falling. We have lost everything from Illford. Today they are a non-player in the ULF film market, except for the statement that they are looking into it.

I hope Illford does everything they say they will, but so far all they have done this year is cut sales of rolls of film to people how are cutting film to ULF sizes, and announce that they don't want to cut ULF film sizes themselves. How is this helping the ULF world?

Untill I see something more then just red type on a website saying they are thinking about ULF sizes, I don't think of them in that ULF Film market. I can't go and buy any of their films in ULF sizes today except from old stock.

There will still be someone somewhere willing to cut film to a ULF size as long as they can make money on the deal, and when there isn't there isn't. My equipment has more then paid for itself, I'd like to work with it for a long time but if I can't, I'll work with what's available.

[Ralph Barker]

My impression is that the strange PULPA name is something that come out of the discussion at the last View Camera conference.

I also believe that Ilford is looking at a couple of different options for their ULF support. Getting some sense of the sizes and estimated usage volumes is a great help to them in trying to formulate rational plans.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

We have lost everything from Illford. Today they are a non-player in the ULF film market
yeah well, if we dont let them know we are interested they never will be....sort of like a self full filing prophecy....no?

[Christopher Perez]

It seems that specialized items, such as ULF film, begs for direct sales distribution. With the advent of the 'net, PayPal, and even eBay itself, there are plenty of ways to access materials as they are made available.

The thing Ilford may need to do to make this a success is to "think outside the box", as it were. If they moved from a distributor sales model to a direct sales model, at least they could follow demand with "just in time manufacturing" and provide good service to those in need. Their on-web forum could act as the first line of information and contact for Customer Service. They could provide a nifty web-based store-front that could handle the actual sales on-line and match it with a phone number for those who don't have web access. Distribution could happen directly out of the factory (as part of the "just in time" portion of the sales system).

When film cameras were all the rage (for over a 100 years), it made sense for distributors to handle stock and to provide service. There were enough buyers to make this model efficient and supportable. But when dealing with niche markets, direct sales tends to work better. Particularly for items that seldom if ever require on-site service. Like film. Like ULF cameras. Like chemistry and paper.

I never believed that "old" companies could be remade into new profitable successful industries. But look at what happened with Ducati, Moto Guzzi, Triumph, and Hogsley Fuerguson (aka Harley Davidson). As the pool of riders shrank, these companies have remained viable and profitable. Some have even expanded.

I believe something similar could happen for Ilford in the area of film, paper, and chemistry. But I remain concerned, as it was the English who introduced the idea of "box wallah" to India - where someone sits all day in a little cube, has an impressive title, but does next to nothing productive. So... here's to hoping that Ilford doesn't screw this up. We need them. But only if they'll play along.

[Oren Grad]

There will still be someone somewhere willing to cut film to a ULF size as long as they can make money on the deal

At the rate things are going, that could easily turn out to be one of the fringe manufacturers that can't maintain minimally adequate quality control, which would as good as kill it.

and when there isn't there isn't

Of course. None of this is a life or death issue. But it means a lot to many of us. If in the end there isn't adequate demand to sustain a market for ULF sheet film, so be it. But it would be a shame to lose something we value out of complacency, or because of a failure to speak up when vendors are trying to figure out whether they can serve.

so far all they have done this year is cut sales of rolls of film to people how are cutting film to ULF sizes

People who were using the same film stock to undercut Ilford on standard sizes and help drive them into bankruptcy.

and announce that they don't want to cut ULF film sizes themselves

To my knowledge they have made no such announcement. All they have said is that they would like to be responsive to our needs, and that they're still figuring out how they can do that. If they do respond, we do not know yet whether they will cut film themselves or farm it out to a third party.

How is this helping the ULF world?

How does cynicism and distrust of a good-faith effort help the ULF world? This is never going to be a huge money-maker for them. Why should they bother if that's the attitude?

[John_4185]

Perhaps Ilford should outsource to a country that has lower labor costs than England, perhaps the USA. I understand there's a big company in the USA that wants to dump their B&W plants. Codec, Kodiak, or something like that.

[John_4185]

http://us.st5.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1862_7204789

[Brian C. Miller]

jj, did I infect you with Despair.com, or did you pick that up somewhere else? :-)

[Terence McDonagh]

Don't forget to suggest an introduction of LF/ULF Pan F.

[Christopher Perez]

jj, and anyone else who is concerned about "outsourcing":
The real cost savings by going to India (for instance) is really only 2 to 1 at this point. Within five years it will be 1 to 1 - no cost savings. Salary is only one component to sending jobs to India (and the least interesting to those who understand the dynamics of using overseas labor).

Many companies are now realizing the true costs of doing business in countries that appear to have inexpensive labor rates: Travel, communications, management, training, clear requirements, process, QA controls, and product transportation costs.

Having said this, companies with no ties to nation-states will do anything they want to fulfill their greed. Hence the likes of Enron, RiteAid, GE, Halliburton, Bechtel, Tyco, and many others. But companies that have some level of ethics and care about the people they employ and and will do the right things by their local labor pool.

For Ilford, I sincerely hope they develop processes and sales channels that streamlines their current markets and gives access to goods and services we all look for. There is no reason why a low run-rate manufacturing line can't have the same quality control and even better turnaround/response/delivery time than a high volume line.

There is money to be made in this niche. Is Ilford interested? I hope so. If not, it will be difficult to rely upon the Central Europeans and Chinese.

[John_4185]

Chris, I would consider working with Ilford if it were not for the language barrier.

Brian, yes you infected me with despair.com. I had seen an article on them in Biz Week, but that was a puff piece compared to their site.

[Joe Smigiel]

About a year and a half ago when I received an Ilford Instructor's Newsletter that contained a new promotion I emailed Wendy Erickson at Ilford who replied to me and then forwarded my message to the Ilford Director of Marketing. I was upset because Ilford had traditionally run a redemption promotion where instructors could collect labels from Ilford paper packages and film boxes to send to the company in exchange for promotional free films or papers for their photo programs. With that newsletter, Ilford had announced they would be redeeming the labels and boxes from the conventional photographic materials for inkjet papers samples only.

My letter thoughtfully expressed my concern and also indicated how our program had promoted traditional Ilford paper products exclusively (and their films to a lesser extent) to our 300 annual photography students each semester for as long as I can remember (at least 15 years since I've been there). I went on to comment how this current move by Ilford sent a message that they were abandoning the traditional product line in favor of the inkjet market, how our program was not interested in their inkjet supplies, etc.

While Wendy's response was immediate, considerate, and supportive, it unfortunately turned out to be her last day on the job as she was one of the early casualties of the cutbacks at the company. After about a month, I finally received a reply to the email she had forwarded to the marketing director. His reply was basically that the response to the traditional redemption program had been less and less every year and so they decided to change to inkjet products. He would be happy to answer any questions I had about the new products, etc. Blah blah, woof woof.

I replied that in his response he had not addressed my stated concerns about Ilford's commitment to conventional materials. I also inquired about possible sample materials of their inkjet product line to be distributed to our faculty and asked if he could provide references to the product specifications, data on archival properties and compatibility with different inksets, etc. Guess what? No response. No samples. No information. No reply at all. Not good marketing IMO.

I recently saw it was this same individual (name forgotten at the moment) who posted the online Ilford enquiry as to the LF and ULF products desired by photographers.

I, as you can imagine, am skeptical at this point that with this person at the helm of Ilford marketing there is a genuine concern by Ilford for what photographers really want to see in their company product offerings. I remain very cynical and have switched to the product offerings of J&C (Efke films, etc.) for my personal work as a result of my correspondance with the Ilford marketing director.

[Ralph Barker]

Joe, while your experience probably justifies your skepticism, I think there are a couple of factors missing from the consideration. At that time, Ilford was a combination analog/digital company trying to balance production and marketing efforts and programs with a rapidly shifting marketplace. The marketing plans that you bumped into were, I believe, a result of that effort to balance between the two competing markets. Creditors, of course, didn't much care about the marketplace problem, hence the company's trip into receivership.

Now, the "traditional" B&W group in England, and the digital folks in Switzerland are separate organizations, even though both product lines are marketed in the U.S. through the same company bearing the Ilford name (but, again, a separate corporation). It's all rather confusing for the consumer, but still a cooperative effort between the various separate companies. But, the new marketing plans for the film group (and the people behind them) can now march to a different drummer, so to speak - one that needs only to keep a single tempo, rather than having to alternate between classical and hip-hop.

The "traditional" B&W group in England has indicated their commitment to traditional B&W films and papers - essentially their intent to be "the last man standing" in that market. Although skepticism is almost always a healthy thing, it may also be helpful for us to recognize that the new Ilford's ability to live up to their commitment depends on our, the comsumer's, response to their efforts, our purchasing, and our willingness to give them a little slack.

I believe their desire to support the ULF market is genuine. But, I also believe they need to proceed cautiously, so as not to invest limited funds and resources at a level that exceeds the actual market. They really can't afford to make too many mistakes or over-investments at this point. They need to keep the new company financially healthy, even if that means not responding with product as quickly or as fully as they might desire.

[Oren Grad]

I want to second Ralph's thoughtful comments, and add one more. Refusing to do business with Ilford because of some grudge carried over from times past just increases the odds that the company will fail. The only ones we'd be "punishing" with that strategy would be ourselves.

[Joe Smigiel]

" Refusing to do business with Ilford because of some grudge carried over from times past just increases the odds that the company will fail.

I gave the marketing director at Ilford an opportunity to respond and follow up on his own proposal to provide additional information to me. He failed to respond. I took that failure as evidence of insincerity on his part. I no longer believe what he says because he did not act on his own proposal. If you wish to consider that a "grudge" well OK. I see it as a poor management decision and therefore have lost faith in that individual and by extension, the company. I no longer believe this individual and AFAIK, he is still/now in charge of marketing the traditional Ilford product line. If you wish to consider him sincere, go ahead.

If Ilford fails, it will not be because I chose to give my allegiance to another company as your post would imply. It will be because of poor decisions made by the officials of that company such as I have been witness to.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It will be because of poor decisions made by the officials of that company such as I have been witness to.

You e mail the guy right at the time when they are in transition and trying to effect a management buy out. Dont you think the guy might have had a lot more in his plate than your e mail? I dont get this position that you gave him one chance and since he did not respond to your satisfaction and immediately the guy is insincere....If you had e mailed 3 or 4 times, I would be the first one to agree with you, but after only one e mail? sorry, I think you are being unreasonable.

[Oren Grad]

Joe -

If Ilford were the only company left making film, would you still react the same way?

[Joe Smigiel]

If you had e mailed 3 or 4 times, I would be the first one to agree with you, but after only one e mail? sorry, I think you are being unreasonable.

Jorge: The fact that he conveniently side-stepped responding to my original question regarding Ilford's commitment did not sit well with me and I brought it to his attention and gave him a second opportunity to respond. I got no "Ilford will be the last company standing response." On top of that, he made an offer to supply me with further information and he did not come through. It was a hollow offer as far as I'm concerned.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The original poster in this thread was curious as to why people had apparently not responded to the Ilford poll. I replied with my reason based on my experience, not on rumor or hearsay. I choose not to believe this individual any further both as a result of his action and his inaction. I hope that I am mistaken and that Ilford will continue to manufacture LF and ULF films but as several earlier posts in this thread seem to indicate, it appears that Ilford is simply giving lip service to their claims of support. Can anyone post a positive personal interaction backed up with action with this individual other than his polling request? If so, I'm willing to listen and am open to changing my mind.

I'm also not about to continue emailing this guy. He had two chances to provide some/any measure of satisfaction to me but chose a different course of action. And, remember that I expressed my concern at the first indication of a change in their policy. I didn't wait around or jump ship until after his initial reply and subsequent non-response.

Frankly, I don't understand why so many choose to believe his post. It is just wishful thinking on their partas far as I am concerned and runs counter to my experience with him. I remain skeptical.

I will admit that my reaction to his lack of action was influenced by a similar interaction I had with a Kodak representative a few years earlier who assured me that Kodak was committed to professional and large-format photographers and had no plans to stop supporting them and limiting their options. Shortly afterward, the company discontinued every product I regularly used or else made the films available only by special orders with minimum purchase requirements in the several thousands of dollars.

I had heard the tune before.

If Ilford were the only company left making film, would you still react the same way?

Oren: I'm not sure what you are getting at. What's the point of this unrealistic and hypothetical question? Would you like me to beg Ilford to keep making their films? Have you taken "the last company standing" hook?

Partly as a result of this incident and the earlier one with Kodak, I became determined to take up wetplate collodion which I'm happy to say I am currently doing as of this past month. That should give you some idea of my mindset concerning my loyalties to film manufacturers and the weight I now give their salespersons' rhetoric. :)

I am no longer dependant on Kodak or Ilford or Fuji or Efke or Forte or Agfa or Luminos or Kentmere or Oriental or...

So yes, even if Ilford was the last company on Earth making film, my reaction would be the same then as now.

[Bob._3483]

So, why do you think Ilford are asking ULFers for input? Some kind of a subtle British joke - a overactive sense of the absurd? A sadistic plot by a group of twisted minds to lull ULF photographers in to a sense of complacency, only to pull the rug out from under them later on???

Or, is it just possible that the management buyout team, having put their own houses and pensions on the line are trying to make a success of the business they are in by meeting the needs of photographers as best they can on limited resources whilst maintaining commercial success?

Don't ask, don't get. Ask, and if you are lucky, and if the wind is blowing from the right direction, and the moon is in a suitable phase, who knows what is possible?

[Nick_3536]

The current company making Ilford film is a new company. It may have the rights to use the Ilford name for film but it's not the same Ilford that wanted to push inkjet paper on you. If you want to hold a grudge hold with the company making inkjet paper.

Or didn't the old Ilford sell the film division off to management?

[Joe Smigiel]

"So, why do you think Ilford are asking ULFers for input? Some kind of a subtle British joke..."

Nothing nefarious regarding the company. But, let me ask you, if your company had a Marketing Director that offered something to a customer and then ignored their response which was civil and included a request to take them up on their offer of providing information and assistance, what would you think? I don't think the company is trying to pull some absurd joke (although I find it curious that thought comes to your mind). I suggest the lack of response was from an individual who either was insincere, incompetant, overwhelmed, or a combination of those things. If so, IMO, he shouldn't be making offers or even in a position to make such offers.

Let me ask another question: Why is Ilford even asking such a question on the internet? Maybe it is a good PR thing, but shouldn't their marketing people already have a pretty good handle on supply and demand? (Or is that potential incompetant marketing aspect rearing its head again?) Is getting a response from a biased sample of individuals on internet forums truly reflective of the market and how much sway should such a sample hold? Wouldn't a more scientific polling be a better indicator of the actual demand and potential sales?

"If you want to hold a grudge hold with the company making inkjet paper."

Who's holding a "grudge" against the company? I'm pointing out that the exact same individual, the Marketing Director both then and now, who told me one thing and never came through, is now soliciting input and that based on his previous behavior, I simply don't believe he is sincere. If everyone else wants to optimistic and believe he is sincere, go ahead. I'm cynical based on my past interaction with him.

If someone offered you help and then never came through, would you believe them again the second time around? What opinion would you hold? Post a contrary experience involving him and perhaps I'll change my opinion regarding his effectiveness and agenda.

FYI, I have visited the Ilfopro site and contributed my input regarding films.